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 Engineering Force, whichis said to be an integral part of the Armed Forces. He retired from hispost on 31st March 1995. On 14th September, 1995, his two majordaughters, who are the appellants, claiming themselves to be residingwith their father and as dependent on him, initiated proceedings foreviction 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 underChapter VIA of the Act. The tenant sought for leave to defend whichwas denied on the ground that the application seeking leave to defend wasfiled beyond the time prescribed therefore. The tenant, laying challenge tothe order of the Rent Controller, preferred a petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution before the High Court, but the same was dismissed. TheRent Controller then, treating the statement by the landlords made inthe application for eviction deemed to have been admitted by the tenant,passed an order for recovery of possession of the premises. The tenantpreferred a Civil Revision before the High Court, which has been allowedand in supersession of the order of the trial court, the eviction petitionfiled by the landlords has been directed to be dismissed. In theopinion of the High Court, the father of the two appellants, in view ofhis having retired, was not a member of Military Services on the dateof institution of proceedings for eviction and therefore, his majordaughters were not entitled to have recourse to special procedure fordisposal of application for eviction on the ground of bona fiderequirement prescribed by Section 29B (Chapter VIA of the Act); theycould have had recourse to the forum of Civil Court. Feeling aggrievedby the order of the High Court, the landlords have filed this appeal byspecial leave.
2. The short question arising for decision is, whether majorrelations of the military personnel, who has stood retired from the serviceand thereby has ceased to be a member of service, are entitled to thebenefit of special procedure prescribed by Section 29B, for the recovery ofpossession under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act.
Section 13(1)(ff) and Section 29B read as under:
'Section 13. Protection of tenant against eviction. --(1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any otherlaw, no order or decree for the recovery of possessionof any premises shall be made by any Court in favourof the landlord against a tenant except on one or moreof the following grounds, namely:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(ff) subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3-A),where the premises are reasonably required bythe landlord for his own occupation if he is theowner or for the occupation of any person forwhose benefit the premises are held and thelandlord or such persons is not in possession ofany reasonably suitable accommodation.'
'Section 29B. Special Procedure for disposal ofapplications for eviction on the ground of bona fiderequirement. - No Civil Court shall entertain anyapplication by a landlord being a Governmentemployee, and who being in occupation of anyresidential premises allotted to him by his employer,is required by, or in pursuance of, an order made bysuch employer, to vacate such residentialaccommodation, or in default to incur certainobligations on the ground that he owns aresidential accommodation either in his own nameor in the name of his wife or dependent child at ornear the place where he is posted for the time being,[or by a landlord who has retired, or will retire withina period of less than one year, as a member of thenaval, military or air force of the Union of India, orby a landlord who is the parent or the wife of suchmember of the naval, military or air force of theUnion of India, or by a landlord who is a relation(other than a minor child or the widow) and adependant of a member of the naval, military or airforce of the Union of India and ordinarily resideswith him or a minor child or the widow of suchmember who dies while in service or within fiveyears of retirement] for the recovery of possession ofany premises on the ground specified in Clause (ff) ofSub-section (1) of Section 13 but such application shallbe dealt with by the Controller in accordance withthe procedure specified in this section.
(2) Whenever any application is filed before theController by a landlord referred to in Sub-section (1)for the recover of possession of any premises on theground specified in Clause (ff) of Sub-section (1) ofSection 13, the Controller shall issue summons, in theform specified in the Second Schedule.
'Provided that-
(a) where the landlord has retired, or will retirewithin a period of less than one year, as amember of the naval, military or air force of theUnion of India, a certificate by the Area of Sub-AreaCommander within whose jurisdiction thepremises are situated or by the Head of hisservice or by his Commanding Officer that hehas retired, or will retire, as such member andthat he requires the premises for his ownoccupation and for the occupation of his familyafter retirement, or
(b) where the landlord is the parent or the wife ofsuch member of the naval, military or air forceof the Union of India as aforesaid, a certificateby the Area of Sub-Area Commander withinwhose jurisdiction the premises are situated thathe or she is the parent or the wife, as the casemay be, of such member of the naval, militaryor air force of the Union of India and that he orshe requires the premises for his or her ownoccupation and for the occupation of his or herfamily after the retirement of such member, or
(c) where the landlord is a relation (other than aminor child or the widow) and a dependant of amember of the naval, military or air force of theUnion of India and ordinarily resides with himor a minor child or the widow of such memberwho dies while in service or within five years ofretirement, a certificate by the Area or Sub-AreaCommander within whose jurisdiction thepremises are situated that he or she is therelation and dependant as aforesaid or the minorchild or the widow, as the case may be, of thedeceased member of the naval, military or airforce of the Union of India and that he or sherequires the premises for his or her ownoccupation and for the occupation of his or herfamily,
shall be produced before the Controller while filing theapplication, and such certificate shall be conclusiveevidence of the fact stated therein.'.
3. The portion, which is placed between brackets '[]' in the text ofthe provision reproduced hereinabove, has been substituted by WestBengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1979 (Act XLI of 1979) witheffect from 17th March, 1980 in place of the words which earlier read as:
'or by a landlord who is a retired member of thenaval, military or air force of the Union of India orwill retire within a period of less than one year assuch member,'
4. The provisos (a), (b) and (c) Sub-section (2), in the present form,were also added by the 1979 Amendment.
5. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the above amendment isset out in the Bill as under:
'Section 29B of the West Bengal PremisesTenancy Act, 1956, as amended by the WestBengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1978,provides some relief, inter alia, to the retiring orretired members of the naval, military or air force ofthe Union of India in the matter of getting backpossession of their own premises let out to tenants, bya special procedure laid down therein. It is considerednecessary that the same relief should also be extendedto the parent or the wife of such member of the naval,military or air force of the Union of India or therelation and dependant (other than a minor child orthe widow) or the minor child or the widow of amember of the naval, military or air force of theUnion of India who dies while in service or withinfive years of retirement.'
(See the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary datedAugust 29, 1979 page 1630)
6. Sub-section (1) of Section 29B, as it now stands, contemplates thefollowing four categories of landlords, the fourth one again sub-dividedinto two sub-categories, who can take advantages of the special procedurefor disposal of application for eviction on the ground of bona fiderequirement. These are:-
(i) a landlord being a Government employee, and who being inoccupation of any residential premises allotted to him by hisemployer, is required by, or in pursuance of, an order made by suchemployer, to vacate such residential accommodation, or indefault to incur certain obligations on the ground that he owns aresidential accommodation either in his own name or in the nameof his wife or dependent child at or near the place where he isposted for the time being;
(ii) a landlord who has retired, or will retire within a period of lessthan one year, as a member of the naval, military or air force of theUnion of India;
(iii) a landlord who is the parent or the wife of such member of thenaval, military or air force of the Union of India;
(iv) a landlord who is:
(a) a relation (other than a minor child or the widow) and a dependent ofa member of the naval, military or air force of the Union of India andordinarily resides with him,
or
(b) a minor child or the widow
of such member who dies while in service or within five years ofretirement.
7. Sub-section (1), as it now stands, having been given its presentshape, consequent upon additions made by atleast two amendments, is along sentence incorporating within its ken several categories of landlords,which, though confusing to comprehend at the firs blush, can neverthelessbe separated and defined by a careful reading of the provision so as to findout the intention of the Legislature. We will concentrate on the 1979Amendment because the category, to which the appellants belong, wasincluded in Section 29B by this amendment. A comparative reading of thetext of the provision, pre and post amendment, reveals a few prominentfeatures. The expression 'a retired member' was not a very appropriateexpression and therefore, the Legislature availed the opportunity forsubstituting a better and more perfect expression in substitution thereofthough retaining in the newly introduced text, the class of landlord referredto in the omitted text, and making the text, along with newly includedclasses of landlord, more clear and meaningful. The category of landlord'being a government employee' was retained as before and left untouched.However, the landlord, who is either himself a member of the naval,military or air force or who is connected with such member by relationshipcoupled with dependence and joint residence, upon whom the Legislatureintended to confer the benefit of Section 29B, were all included in the textof the amendment. For category (ii) landlord, the eligibility requirement isthat he should be a member of the naval, military or air force of the Unionof India on the date of retirement, though the action for recovery ofpossession may be commenced within a period of less than one year ofretirement or post retirement. In category (iii), by using the word 'such' asqualifying the word 'member' in the context of his parent or the wife, theintention of the Legislature is to confer the benefit of Section 29B on alandlord who is a parent or the wife of a member of the naval, military orair force of the Union of India, who has retired or will retire within a periodof less than one year. Thus, a member--landlord and a parent or the wife ofsuch member, who is himself or herself a landlord, are placed on the samefooting. While dealing with landlord falling in category (iv), theLegislature has consciously not used the words 'such member' in thecontext of a relation. If the words would have been a relation of 'suchmember' then the word 'member' would have taken the same colour as hasbeen given to the word 'member' in category (ii). By using the word 'amember' in this part of the running sentence, the intention of theLegislature is that here the word 'member' should take a colour differentfrom the one assigned to 'a member' and 'such member' in category (ii)and (iii) respectively. While dealing with category (iv) and touching sub-category(a), the Legislature once again uses the expression -- 'a member ofthe naval, military or air force of the Union of India and while passing onto sub-category (b) prefixes adjective 'such' to noun 'member'; meaningthereby, that in sub-category (b), 'member' has to be read in the same senseas is attributable to it in the preceding part of the sentence dealing with sub-category(a) of category (iv). In addition, the word 'such member' isqualified by 'who dies while in service or within five years of retirement'.In the context of that part of the sentence which has been added by 1979Amendment, a relation (dependent and co-resident) is treated on par with aminor child or the widow (of a member of the naval, military or air force ofthe Union of India'). The reason is not far to seek. The Legislature feelsthat a relation, dependent and ordinarily resident with a member, and minorchild or widow of such member -- all the three categories of landlord aresuch whose requirement for self occupation of tenanted premises wouldarise on account of death of a member while in service or even afterretirement; else such relation, a minor child or the wife would continue toreside with such member. However, death of such member, as an eventthough unfortunate but conferring eligibility for invoking section 29B on arelation (dependent and jointly residing), or a minor child or the widow,should have taken place while such member is in service or within fiveyears of retirement.
8. Recently in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and Ors., : AIR2001SC3095 , a Constitution Bench of this Court has observed that the use ofthe word 'such' as an adjective prefixed to a noun is indicative of thedraftsman's intention that he is assigning the same meaning orcharacteristics to the noun as has been previously indicated or that he isreferring to something which has been said before. New Webster'sDictionary and Thesaurus was cited with approval wherein the meaning of'such' is given as 'of a kind previously or about to be mentioned orimplied; of the same quality as something just mentioned (used to avoid therepetition of one word twice in a sentence); of a degree or quantity stated orimplicit; the same as something just mentioned (used to avoid repetition ofone word twice in a sentence); that part of something just stated or about tobe stated'.
9. We do not agree with the construction placed by the High Court onthe relevant part of Section 29B which is under consideration. A relation,who is a dependent and also jointly residing with member of naval, militaryor air force of the Union of India would hardly have an occasion or need toinitiate proceedings for eviction so long as such member is alive and inservice. We are clearly of the opinion that a relation (dependent and jointlyresiding), a minor child and the widow -- are such three classes as theLegislature intended to treat on a par. Our this inference and suchclassification into the several categories, as we have made hereinabove,finds support form proviso (a), (b) and (c). Category (ii) is dealt with byproviso (a). Category (iii) is dealt with by proviso (b). Category (iv) isdealt with by proviso (c). According to proviso (c), the certificate by theArea or Sub-Area Commander of the jurisdiction is to be issued byreference to the two sub-categories, viz.: (i) the relation and dependent asaforesaid, or (ii) the minor child or the widow, as the case may be -- allreferable to the deceased member and the requirement of premises being forhis or her own occupation and for the occupation of his or her family.
10. It is well settled that classification for the purpose of legislationcannot be done with mathematical precision. The Legislature enjoysconsiderable latitude while exercising its wisdom taking into considerationmyriad circumstances, enriched by its experience and strengthened bypeople's will. So long as the classification can withstand the test of Article 14 of Constitution, it cannot be questioned why one subject was includedand the other left out and why one was given more benefit than the other.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that real need of suchlandlord (as like the appellants) arises when the person, whose relation heor she is, has ceased to be in service and therefore, the provision shouldbe so interpreted as to advance the purpose sought to be achieved byenacting the provision. We find it difficult to agree. Resort can be hadto legislative intent for the purpose of interpreting a provision of law, whenthe language employed by the Legislature is doubtful or susceptible ofmeanings more than one. However, when the language is plain and explicitand does not admit of any doubtful interpretation, in that case, we cannot,by reference to an assumed legislative intent, expand the meaning of anexpression employed by the Legislature and therein include such categoryof persons as the legislature has not chosen to do. We cannot also holdthat the special procedure of Section 29B can be taken advantage of by alandlord 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 precedingwords 'of such member who dies', and are, therefore, referable to theevent of death of such member. If only the Legislature would haveintended that the benefit of Section 29B should be available to a landlordwho is a relation of a member of such service even after his retirement andliving, in that case, in the part of the provision which is underconsideration the Legislature would have used some such words as 'amember or retired member' or simply 'such member' instead of 'amember', in which case there could have been some merit in thesubmission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. But, theLegislature has not chosen to do so.
12. As we agree with the High Court that the petition under Section13(1)(ff) read with Section 29B was not maintainable, though for reasondifferent from the one assigned by the High Court, it is not necessary toexamine the alternative submission made by the learned counsel forthe 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 ofMinistry of Transport of the Government of India and hence, was not amember of military services.
13. The dismissal of this petition, needless to say, would not debarthe appellants from seeking the remedy of recovery of possession fromthe tenant-respondent by having recourse to such other provision of lawand such other Forum, as may be available to them.
14. The appeal is dismissed, though, without any order as to costs.