PANDURONGA TIMBLO INDUSTRIES Vs. COSME MATIAS MENEZES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioners / original respondents in the applications for eviction under provisions of Section 22(2)(f) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the common order dated 18.11.1996 passed in Case No.BLDG/3/ARC-II/91 and Case No.BLDG/4/ARC-II/91 by the Rent Controller- IV, Margao and the common order dated 23/09/2008 passed in Eviction Revision Application Nos. 25 and 26 of 1997 by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Panaji, Goa.

(3.) The respondents therein- owners of flat Nos. 11 and 12 in multi storied building popularly known as 'Elvina' situate at Isidoro Baptista Road, Pajifond, Margao, Goa moved applications for eviction of the petitioners a partnership firm and its partners from the said flats on the ground that they had ceased to occupy the building for continuous period of four months without reasonable cause - a ground available for eviction of the tenant from the rented premises under Section 22(2)(f) of the Act- before the Rent Controller of Goa, South Division at Margao being Rent Application Nos.BLDG/3/ARC-II/1991 and BLDG/4/ARC3 II/1991. The pleadings in Rent Application Nos. BLDG/3/ARC-II/1991 and BLDG/4/ARC-II/1991 revealed that the subject matters of the said applications were flat numbers 11 and 12 respectively. The respondents therein joined the issues with their written statements. The written statements revealed that the suit premises referred to in the said applications were in fact flat Nos. 12 and 11 respectively and the rent payable in respect of the said flats were Rs.650/- and 450/- per month respectively. The evidence of the applicants' first witness Josephat Gomes was partly recorded on 30/11/1993. During the course of the cross-examination of the said witness applications for amendments of the said eviction applications were moved on 21.7.1994. It was contended therein that typographical mistakes leading to erroneous description of the flat numbers and rent necessitated the amendments to the applications. Additional details regarding electricity meters were also sought to be incorporated in the eviction applications by the amendments proposed in the said applications dated 21.7.1994. These applications for amendment were resisted with the respective replies dated 25.1.1995. The petitioners / original respondents contended that the proposed amendments were inconsistent with the pleadings and were designed to change the cause of action. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Rent Controller, Margao turned down the contentions of the petitioners (original respondents) and allowed the amendments to the applications as proposed.