USHA P KUVELKAR Vs. RAVINDRA SUBRAI DALVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) In this appeal the legal heirs of the Original Landlord have come up to challenge the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, whereby the learned Single Judge of that Court set aside the orders of the two authorities below and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The tenant-respondent herein had filed a Civil Revision Application as also the Writ Petition and it was by a common judgment that the said Civil Revision and the Writ Petition came to be disposed of. The basic facts are as follows.

(3.) That Late Prabhakar Govind Sinai Kuvelkar was, admittedly, the owner of the premises in question being Flat No.C-S-40(5). This was a flat in Cooperative Housing Society called Adarsha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Caranzalem, Goa. The said flat was leased out to the tenant-respondent herein for an initial period of 11 months vide Lease Deed dated 31.12.1977 and the said tenancy was continued by the landlord-appellant even after the expiry of 11months as he was unable to occupy the said flat at that point of time. An application came to be filed on 3.7.1986 being Eviction Case No.8 of 1987 before the Additional Rent Controller, North Goa, Panaji on the ground that the said premises was required for his own personal occupation and also for the members of his family. It was also alleged that the tenant-respondent was in arrears of rent and had also defaulted in making payment of municipal tax. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord-appellant started suffering from heart problems and required continuous treatment of Dr. S vs. Bhandare of Panaji and, therefore, preferred an amendment application to bring on record the subsequent facts as also to substantiate the claim of his own personal requirement. It was also pointed out that the wife of the landlord-appellant had developed Rheumatoid disease and was also under the constant care of Dr. S vs. Bhandare of Panaji. The landlord-appellant pointed out that on account of the above ailment, the need to shift to Panaji became even more acute. The landlord also pleaded in the said amendment application a new ground which became available in view of amendment of Section 23-A of the Goa Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) introduced during the pendency of the eviction case. This amendment to the Section came into force with effect from 22.2.1988 and by the said amendment a right was provided to the landlord to recover immediate possession of the premises if such landlord was an employee of the State Government and had duly retired and required the premises for personal bona fide occupation for himself or any member of his family. In fact the amendment provided for summary procedure for eviction. It was pointed out that the landlord had retired from service on 31.5.1983 and as such required the premises for his own bona fide occupation.