We may now advert to the issue framed under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Section 13(1)(1) reads as under :
"that the tenant after coming into operation of this Act has built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted a suitable residence."
A look at the section would indicate that it does not require any other rule of construction except the literal construction. Such a construction would contemplate that building or owning a premises is distinct from acquiring vacant possession or allotment of suitable residence. If the arguments of the petitioner is to be accepted, it would contemplate that if the petitioner is allotted the premises by his employer in the same locality that would not amount to acquisition of premises. The argument is based on the contention that there must be an element of volunteerness. In other words, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that once petitioner is a tenant and during the course of his employment is allotted residence by his employer, that allotment would not amount to acquisition of suitable residence. It would be difficult to accept this contention as the consequences that follows from that argument, would be that once a tenant, always a tenant. In other words it may amount to depriving the landlord of his right to property. Such construction in my opinion is not possible.
The purpose of the Rent Act was to prevent eviction of the tenant except for those grounds contained inSection 13 and Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. If, therefore, during the course of the tenancy the tenant acquires whether by way of tenancy or by way of allotment by his employer accommodation that would fall within the meaning of Section 13(1)(1). The element of volunteerness in those matters would be immaterial as otherwise. It would be carving out a class of tenants in organisation who though allotted suitable accommodation by the employer can continue to reside in the premises for all times to come. This would have never been the object for which Section 13(1)(1) was enacted which was to provide protection to the tenant.
Bombay High Court
Rajendraprasad Kedarprasad ... vs Shankar Vithu Kuveskar on 5 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 (3) BomCR 425, (2002) 4 BOMLR 126, 2002 (3) MhLj 498
Bench: F Rebello
