MANOHAR CHOWGULE Vs. GAURUI D. HONAVARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below, whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate the suit room situated in Dabolim Goa and to pay arrears of rent to the respondent.

(2.) The respondent filed an application under Sec. 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, against the petitioners seeking eviction from the suit room premises on the ground that the petitioners were in arrears of rent. The aforesaid application was resisted by the petitioners. It was claimed that the petitioners had earlier moved an application under Sec. 18 of the Act for depositing rent and that the respondent had failed to place on record sufficient material to show that the petitioners were in arrears of rent. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners was that the respondent was not the owner of the suit room.

(3.) The Court of Civil Judge Junior Division at Vasco (Trial Court) framed 5 issues in the aforesaid application and found in favour of the respondent on all the said issues. It was found that the respondent had proved that she was the owner of the suit room and that the petitioners were tenants therein. It was found that the petitioners were liable to pay the arrears of rent. Accordingly, by judgment and order dtd. 31/10/2017, the trial Court partly allowed the application for eviction filed by the respondent, thereby directing the petitioners to vacate the suit room and to pay the arrears of rent.