Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 714 (CAL)

Chunnilal Jaiswal v. Prabir Kumar Sen

2015-08-25

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. 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. 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) 1984(1) R.C.R (Rent) 117 : AIR 1984 SC 458 (1) [Mrs. Winifred Ross and Anr. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca & Ors.]. 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 2008(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 3 : AIR 2008 SC 2611 [Smt. Sulochana v. Rajendra Singh]. 4. Mr. He then submitted that this decision was followed in a subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2008(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 3 : AIR 2008 SC 2611 [Smt. Sulochana v. Rajendra Singh]. 4. Mr. Dasgupta submitted that the provisions of Section 13-A1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was pari materia with provision of 23-J of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.P. Act'). He submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court after discussion of all the previous judgments was pleased to hold that the landlord who purchased the premises on 23rd March, 1996 and the respondent who inducted was tenant of the said premises way back in 1978 was not a landlord within the meaning of Section 23-J of the M.P. Act. However, the Hon'ble Court concluded that the landlord was specifically defined for that Chapter III-A and according to such definition the relevant date for claiming such benefit under Chapter III-A was the date of her becoming a widow. Learned Counsel submitted in the instant case, the landlord purchased the property after two years of his retirement. He is in partial occupancy of the premises. A plain reading of the Section 9(1) would suggest that a Government employee or a retired Government employee being landlord on the date of his retirement is entitled to recover possession from his tenant in terms of the said provision. In case he is not a landlord on the date of his retirement, he is not covered by the provision under Section 9(1) of the aforementioned Act. He further submitted that there is no difference between Section 9(1) and 9(2) of the Act and both the sections clearly mentioned that the premises should be "let out" by the landlord. Therefore, according to him, the landlord must be an owner on the date of his retirement otherwise he would not get any benefit under the aforementioned provision. He submitted that the provisions couldn't be interpreted differently once for army and then for a civil servant. He submitted that if two interpretations are given, once for a civil servant and then for an army personal then it would be unreasonable interpretation which would be discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to him, in the facts and circumstances of this case, general provision for eviction would apply. He submitted that if two interpretations are given, once for a civil servant and then for an army personal then it would be unreasonable interpretation which would be discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to him, in the facts and circumstances of this case, general provision for eviction would apply. Learned Counsel laid emphasis upon paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Smt. Sulochana's case (supra). He submitted that it would be clear and specific from the aforementioned judgment that provision under Section 23-J of the M.P. Act is pari materia with Section 13-A1 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. In this regard learned Counsel also cited a judgment reported in 2000(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 161 : AIR 2000 M.P. 235 [Kunjulal Yadu & Ors. v. Parasram Sharma] and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court considered Section 20AA of the M.P. Act and held that if the said provision would have been alive in the Statute, there would have been no iota of doubt that the case of Winfred Ross (supra) would have covered the situation for the simple reason the repealed provision, as observed in the case of Baijnath Prasad Sain v. Daya Shankar Sain, AIR 1991 MP 132 was pari materia with the provisions under the Bombay Act. He submitted that on that basis the Special Bench of M.P. High Court have decided, in view of the provisions engrafted under Section 23A of the M.P. Act, if the landlord acquires an accommodation after his retirement and let out the same to the tenant, he would have entitled to exercise the special provision for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. He further submitted that the word "landlord" has been specifically defined in Chapter III-A of the M.P. Act. Therefore, according to him, the provision under Section 23-A and 23-J of M.P. Act are not pari materia to the provision under Section 9(1) of the Act. He further submitted that the word "landlord" has been specifically defined in Chapter III-A of the M.P. Act. Therefore, according to him, the provision under Section 23-A and 23-J of M.P. Act are not pari materia to the provision under Section 9(1) of the Act. Learned Counsel submitted that Section 23-J specified the categories of landlords who are entitled to benefit of Chapter III-A. Under chapter III-A, landlord include retired servants of Government or defence service, a retired servant of a Company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government; or a widow or a divorced wife; physically handicapped person; or a servant of any Government or defence service who, according to his service conditions, is not entitled to Government accommodation on his posting to a place where he owns a house or is entitled to such accommodation only on payment of a penal rent. 5. Mr. Dasgupta submits Chapter IV of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997 do not specifically define "landlord" like M.P. Act which would definitely create a distinction between the two Acts. According to him, in terms of provision Under Section 9(1) of the Act, the retired Government servant must own a property at the time of retirement for getting benefit under the special provisions of Section 9(1) of the Act. According to him, the learned Court below failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances disclosed in the plaint which do not attract the provisions Under Section 9(1) of the Act. He submitted, if the Court interprets the provision in the way the landlord suggest, in that event, the question of reasonable requirement would arise even if the property is purchased any time during life time of a Government employee after his retirement which is not at all conceivable in view of legislative intent. However, if this Court is of the view that the provision is not applicable in case of a landlord who has acquired the property after his retirement then the question of reasonable requirement need not be considered. Learned Counsel submits that the order impugned should be set aside and the revisional application should be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Learned Counsel submits that the order impugned should be set aside and the revisional application should be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Pal appearing for the plaintiffs/opposite parties submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the Special Bench judgment of M.P. High Court reported in 2000(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 161 : AIR 2000 Madhya Pradesh 235 [Kunjulal Yadu & Ors. v. Parasram Sharma]. He submitted that in view of the provisions under Section 9(1), the petitioner even if acquired titled of the property after about two years of his retirement, is entitled to have his remedy under Section 9(1) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997. He submits that Section 23-J of M.P. Act and Section 9 of the Act are pari materia. He further submits that Section 3-J(v) is pari materia with Section 9(1)(a) of the Act. He further submits that Section 9(2) of the Act applies to army personnel only and Section 9(2) is different from the provision under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act. He submits Section 9(1)(d) of the Act is pari materia with Section 23-A of M.P. Act. According to him, the special provision under Section 9(1) of Chapter IV of the Act is pari materia with the provisions under Sections 23-A and 23-J of the M.P. Act. Therefore, the ratio of the aforementioned full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court is applicable in full force. He further submits that Section 9(1)(a) of the Act does not envisage, the landlord/opposite party to be an owner of the property before his retirement. However, according to him, Section 9(2) of the said Act deals with army people and as per Section 9(2) the landlord [an Army personnel of any of the three wings of army] must have a house before retirement. He submits that Sections 9(1) and 9(2) are not pari materia provision and, according to him, these two sections are dealing with two different classes of employees. Therefore, there would be no discrimination if it is held that the persons doing civil service acquires property after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of this special provision. Learned Counsel, however, accepted that as per Section 9(2) of the Act any member of any of the three wings of the defence is required to be a landlord at the time of his retirement. Learned Counsel, however, accepted that as per Section 9(2) of the Act any member of any of the three wings of the defence is required to be a landlord at the time of his retirement. He submits that plaintiff was under obligation to surrender or vacate the Government quarter at the time of his retirement but he did not. He is always under threat to vacate the premises. Although there is no written threat or written direction upon the landlords/opposite parties to vacate the premises but he is to vacate the Government accommodation. He also submits that the present occupation of four rooms is not sufficient for the plaintiffs/opposite parties. He further submits that in view of the provision under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, the plaintiffs although acquired title after retirement, is entitled to get benefit under the provisions of 9(1) of the Act and entitled to initiate proceedings under it. According to him, the learned Court below has rightly decreed the suit considering the scope and ambit of the provision engrafted under Section 9(1) of the Act. However, learned Counsel submitted that Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is not pari materia with the provisions under Section 9 of the present Act. He further submits that the two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court were on different facts and, therefore, the ratio of those two judgments would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Learned Counsel submits that this revisional application has no merit. According to him, the revisional application must fail. 7. Considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 8. It would be very relevant and pertinent to quote the provisions referred by both the learned Counsel in M.P. Act as well as the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and 1997. Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is quoted hereunder: "S. 29B. Considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 8. It would be very relevant and pertinent to quote the provisions referred by both the learned Counsel in M.P. Act as well as the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and 1997. Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is quoted hereunder: "S. 29B. Special Procedure for disposal of applications 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 relation (other than a minor child or the widow) and a dependant 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." Provision under Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are quoted hereunder : "9. Right to recover immediate possession. Right to recover immediate possession. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or any other law for the time being in force or in any contract to the contrary, the right to recover immediate possession of any premises let out shall accrue to the landlord who- (a) is a Government employee or retired Government employee, (b) is in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by his employer, (c) is required by, or in pursuance of, an order made by his 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 of posting, and (d) has requirement of the premises for his own occupation. (2) Where the landlord is a released or retired person from the Army, Navy or Air Force or will retire within a period of less than one year as a member of the Army, navy or Air Force and the premises let out by him are required for his own occupation or where the landlord is the parent or wife of a member of the Army, navy or Air Force who dies while in service or within five years of retirement and the premises let out by such member are required for the occupation of the family of such member, the landlord may apply to the Controller for recovery of immediate possession of such premises." Provision under Sections 23-A and 23-J of the M.P. Act, are also quoted below: "23-A Special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application, signed and verified in a manner provided in rules 14 and 15 of Order 6 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation, namely:- (a) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, "accommodation let for residential purposes" includes :- (i) any accommodation which having been let for use as a residence is without the express consent of the landlord, used wholly or partly for any non-residential purpose; (ii) any accommodation which has not been let under an express provision of contract for non-residential purpose; (b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for the purpose of continuing of starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned: Provided that where a person who is a landlord has acquired any accommodation or any interest therein by transfer, no application for eviction of tenant of such accommodation shall be maintainable at the instance of such person unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of such acquisition." "23-J. Definition of landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A - For the purposes of this Chapter "landlord" means a landlord who is :- (i) a retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence Services; or (ii) a retired servant of a Company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government or (iii) a widow or a divorced wife; or (iv) physically handicapped person; or (v) a servant of any Government including a member of defence services who, according to his service conditions, is not entitled to Government accommodation on his posting to a place where he owns a house or is entitled to such accommodation only on payment of a penal rent on his posting to such a place." 9. Now the question emerges whether a landlord, who has become landlord by purchasing a property after his retirement, is entitled to get the benefit of the special provision under Section 9(1) of the Act. To decide this question one has to look at the provision which was originally legislated by the State Legislature under Section 29-B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. To decide this question one has to look at the provision which was originally legislated by the State Legislature under Section 29-B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. According to this provision 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 can make an application for eviction of tenant and in view of that provision a person who is a Government employee is required to possess and owns a premises. 10. In view of this provision, the person who is still in service and owning a premises before his retirement was entitled to have benefit of Section 29B as it was originally legislated. However, by a subsequent amendment in 1979 this provision being 29B has extended its benefit to the members of three wings of defence i.e. army, navy and air force. In view of this amendment the person who is serving any of the three wings of defence, a landlord, was allowed to have the benefit of Section 29B of 1956 Act. 11. According to section 29B, any member of army who is a landlord at the time of his retirement can avail the benefit under Section 29B. Since 1956 Act was replaced by the Act of 1997 these provisions were also replaced by Section 9(1) & 9(2) of the new Act. 11. According to section 29B, any member of army who is a landlord at the time of his retirement can avail the benefit under Section 29B. Since 1956 Act was replaced by the Act of 1997 these provisions were also replaced by Section 9(1) & 9(2) of the new Act. Under the new Act, for Government employees who are in service or retired was given a privilege to recover immediate possession of any premises let out and this right to get back immediate possession would accrue to the landlord who is a Government employee or a retired Government employee and is in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by his employer, is required by, or pursuance of an order made by his employer to vacate such residential accommodation or, in default, to incur certain obligations on the ground that 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. Thus it is very much clear that the landlord who is an employee of the Government or retired from Government service being a landlord, is entitled to get the benefit of this section. 12. A plain reading of the provision does not envisage in case of subsequent acquisition of property i.e. acquisition after retirement by the Government employee would entitle him to get the benefit of this special provision. Had it been the legislative intention then there would have clear reflection in the provision itself. But the provision does not contain such provision. There is no scope to interpret the provision as claimed or contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties. Although learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties accepted that according to provisions under Subsection (2) of Section 9 of the Act any defence personnel belonging to any of its three wings i.e. Field, Navy and Air Force to get the benefit, required to possess the property and/or acquire the property and become landlord before his retirement but in case of civil servant it would be otherwise, the Government employee won't be required to acquire the property or become landlord before his retirement. If he purchased the property after his retirement he would also get the benefit. This argument, if accepted, would definitely defeat the object and purpose of legislation and in effect would be discriminatory. If he purchased the property after his retirement he would also get the benefit. This argument, if accepted, would definitely defeat the object and purpose of legislation and in effect would be discriminatory. While interpreting the provision the key factor one has to look the reasons for its legislation. Legislators considering the inconvenience and difficulty of retired Government employees and army personnel of three wings who are landlords, asked to vacate the Government premises on retirement or for other reason, should get a privilege under a special provision to get their premises vacated on reasonable requirement. If this is the necessity and requirement of bringing the legislation, then there should not be any reason whatsoever to hold, in case of civil service, the employee who became landlord after his retirement would get the privilege under the special provision. Accordingly, the Government servant whether in civil service or in army should get the privilege to get his premises vacated at the earliest possible with the help of special provision under Section 9(1) and (2) of the Act provided he is a landlord on the date of his retirement. If any other interpretation is given that would definitely frustrate the purpose and object of such legislation. It would also be a discriminatory one and likely to expose it to a successful challenge on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, one has to read down the provision under Sub-section (1) conferring the benefit only to those retired Government employees who were landlords of the premises on the date of their retirement. Any other interpretation would definitely go against the aim and object of the section so legislated. 13. It cannot be conceived that merely because army personnel are fighting in war front would be required to get the benefit of the special provision provided they are landlord on the date of retirement whereas in case of civil servant the benefit would be something more simply because they are in civil service. The argument advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/opposite parties, on that score, is not at all acceptable. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court have already dealt with the issue and held that the members of three wings of defence forces are required to have their ownership at the time of retirement failing which they will not get the benefit of the special provision. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court have already dealt with the issue and held that the members of three wings of defence forces are required to have their ownership at the time of retirement failing which they will not get the benefit of the special provision. Thus, the same principle will also apply in case of civil servants and/or Government employees. Plain reading of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) under Section 9 do not differentiate between the two groups nor do give any special benefit and/or privilege to the civil servants and/or Government employees. 15. Although learned Counsel for the landlords/opposite parties submitted Section 9(1) is pari materia with Section 23-J(v) but it appears, a special definition of 'landlord', was inserted under Chapter IIIA of M.P. Act in aid of the section whereas under Chapter IV of the new Act of 1997 there is no such special definition in aid of Section 9 of the present Act and, therefore, provisions under Section 23A and 23J cannot be held as pari materia with the provisions under Section 9(1) of the Act. Further plain and simple reading of Section 9(1) of the Act would reveal that the special provision would be applicable to a Government employee whether in service or not in service provided he is a landlord when in service or on the date of his retirement. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in case of Smt. Sulachana (supra) would be very relevant. In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court have followed the earlier judgment delivered in case of Mrs. Winifred Ross (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the provision under Chapter IIIA of the M.P. Act, held that the premises which was purchased much after the induction of tenancy does not create any landlord-tenant relationship. However in view of this special provision defining 'landlord' under Chapter IIIA, the relevant date would be the date when the petitioner became widow because the provision defining the word 'landlord' contained for the purpose of this chapter, landlord means who is widow or a divorced wife. Therefore, this is quite clear, if relationship of landlord and tenant do not exist on the date of purchase the benefit under Section 9(1) would not be available to the retired Government employee because of his subsequent purchase, even if it is accepted the provisions of M.P. Act are pari materia to Section 9(1). Therefore, this is quite clear, if relationship of landlord and tenant do not exist on the date of purchase the benefit under Section 9(1) would not be available to the retired Government employee because of his subsequent purchase, even if it is accepted the provisions of M.P. Act are pari materia to Section 9(1). Therefore, in the instant case, the plaintiff/opposite party would not be entitled to have the benefit of this special provision. Accordingly by ratio of the Special Bench judgment dealing with the provisions under M.P. Act would have no application in this case. 16. In the instant case, there are some special features which are not similar to the Special Bench decision, the special features :- (1) the petitioner became landlord after two years of his retirement. (2) On purchase he got four room in his possession and (3) the petitioner who was obliged to surrender his Government accommodation on the date of his retirement did not surrender his accommodation, nor he was asked to surrender his Government accommodation, therefore, in no way he would get the benefit of Section 9(1) of the 1997 Act. 17. The employer did not also pass any order to vacate his Government residential accommodation as yet on the ground that he owns a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child. Therefore, the petitioner is not at all covered by any of the provisions under Section 9(1)(a), (b) or (c). Since he is not entitled to get benefit of Section 9(1), he can not get his eviction suit tried before the Small Causes Court. However, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Smt. Sulochana (supra) would be of much assistance to decide the case. The relevant paragraphs being paragraphs 37 and 38 are quoted hereunder : "37. Appellant has purchased the premises on 23rd March, 1996 whereas the respondent was inducted as tenant of the premises way back in 1978. It is, therefore, not a case where the respondent was inducted as a tenant by the appellant. She was, thus, not a landlord within the meaning of Section 23-J of the Act. The relevant date for claiming the special benefit of Chapter III-A was the date of her becoming a widow.] 38. It is, therefore, not a case where the respondent was inducted as a tenant by the appellant. She was, thus, not a landlord within the meaning of Section 23-J of the Act. The relevant date for claiming the special benefit of Chapter III-A was the date of her becoming a widow.] 38. An identical question came up for consideration in Winifred Ross and another v. Fonseca and others [1984(1) R.C.R (Rent) 117 : (1984) 1 SCC 288 wherein application of a pari materia provision contained in Section 13-A1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 fell for consideration of this Court." Therefore, the provisions under Section 9(1) and 9(2) of the Act of 1997 are all special provisions and confined to eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement of Government employees who are on the date of their retirement being Landlords required by their employer to surrender their accommodation on the grounds of stipulated period and the provision reasonably required the premises for their own use and occupation. In case of M.P. Act the landlords who are coming within the special definition of 'Landlords' they are entitled to get the benefit of the special provisions. Accordingly, the defendant/petitioner is not entitled to get coverage under Section 9(1) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1997. For the forgoing reasons the order impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is set aside. However, this will not prevent the plaintiffs/opposite parties to take recourse to the general provisions applicable for termination of tenancy and/or reasonable requirement. Later: Prayer for stay of operation of this order made by the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants/opposite parties is considered and rejected.