VENCESLAO GONSALVES Vs. THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order of the Rent Controller, Panaji dated 12/9/2008 in case No.Rent/ADC/1/97, and that of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Eviction Appeal No. 34/3008 dated 10/2/2010. At the outset, it must be clarified that I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the basis that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal can be sustained on the ground of sub -letting of the suit premises. The requirement of the wife of the landlord of the suit premises because of her medical condition is concerned, that ground does not survive as she expired.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No.1 and 2 had filed an eviction application being case No. Rent/ADC/1/97 against the petitioners herein on the plea of their ownership of the suit premises which is a house/bungalow. It consists of a ground and two upper floors. It is situated within the limits of Panaji Municipal Council. After description of the suit property, what has been referred to in the eviction application is that in the year 1975, petitioners no.1 and 2 approached the owners/ respondents no.1 and 2 herein with a request to allow them to use the suit property for a period of three years on payment of rent. By a Lease Agreement dated 7/2/1975, the suit property was let out for a period of three years. After referring to the various clauses of the lease agreement and particularly prohibition against sub -letting of the suit property, it has been alleged that the lease agreement refers to the fact that the premises shall be used strictly for the purpose of running business of petitioners No.1 and 2 under the name and style "LA VISTA LODGE". It is not necessary to refer to the ground of default in payment of rent and bonafide need, because, as observed above, it is only the ground of sub -letting which is relevant. As far as that ground is concerned, what has been alleged in the application is that petitioners No.1 and 2 herein have violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated 7th February, 1975 by sub -letting the leased premises to petitioner No.3. Petitioner No.3 was the original respondent no. 3. The sub -letting was allowed from February, 1996. In para 14 of the application, this is what is alleged :

(3.) AS far as written statement is concerned, it appears that there was a combined written statement filed by all the petitioners who have denied the fact of sub -letting and contended that there was a partnership deed dated 24.4.1995 between petitioners No.1 and 2 and petitioner No.3 before me, wherein petitioner No.3 was inducted into the partnership "La -Vista Lodge" and in the said partnership it was agreed that all would be working partners and that petitioners No.1 and 2 would each get a remuneration of Rs.60,000/ - per annum, while petitioner No.3 would get fixed remuneration, but from the balance amount available after deducting the sums he would get 90% in the ratio, as set out in para 28 of the written statement. It was stated that in the course of working of the partnership, petitioner No. 3 was allotted the marketing of the business and was entrusted with the management of the marketing of the business. Thus, denying that there was any violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed and that there was any sub -letting, it was prayed that the eviction application be dismissed.