DATTARAM PANGAM Vs. ALLAN EURICO VALES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVICTION proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the original applicants, now represented by their universal heir Allan Eurico Vales respondent No. 1. The eviction was sought on three grounds, namely :- (1) sub-letting a part of tenanted premises; (2) changing the user of the premises from residential to non-residential; and (3) that the appellant had acquired residential premises of his own. The Additional Rent Controller ordered eviction of the appellant on all the grounds vide judgment dated 20-9-1989. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Administrative Tribunal was summarily rejected. The appellant challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 455/1991, which was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this Court vide Oral judgment dated 9-10-1996. The learned Single Judge set aside the eviction sought on the ground of acquisition of residential premises by the appellant since it was found that the appellant was already in possession of the premises much before coming into force of the Rent Act or for that matter, the lease agreement of 1974. However, the eviction on the grounds of sub-letting and change of user, was sustained. The learned Single Judge, in para (7) of the judgment, exercised superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227 while disposing of the writ petition as it is clear from para (7) of the oral judgment. The appellant challenges the same in this Letters Patent appeal.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri R. G. Ramani argued on behalf of the appellant. Learned Advocate Shri M. M. Rao argued on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 5.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant cited a number of judgments to bring home the point that Letters Patent Appeal lies against the judgment in Writ Petition 455/91. However, it is not necessary, at this stage, to go into this question. We shall examine the matter on its merits.